Transgender Representation in Biotech: Why It Matters for Science and Patients

This week in the Guardrail, the biotech sector faces an urgent mandate to strengthen its scientific rigor and social equity by fully incorporating transgender perspectives and talents across its workforce.

Written by Michael Bronfman for Metis Consulting Services

December 22, 2025

Transgender people are part of every community, including biotech. Representation means that transgender scientists, clinicians, engineers, and staff are visible, heard, and included. When biotech companies and research teams include transgender people, scientific outcomes improve. When transgender people are excluded or invisible, both the workplace and the patients who depend on new medicines lose essential perspectives.

Why representation matters

Representation matters for several practical reasons. Diverse teams produce better science. People with different life experiences notice different problems and ask other questions. That variety of viewpoints leads to new ideas and better solutions. Companies that include transgender employees are more likely to design studies and clinical trials that consider the needs of transgender patients. That attention can improve the safety and the relevance of treatments for many people. Third, representation builds trust. If patients see themselves reflected among researchers and company leaders, they are more likely to enroll in studies and to believe that the research will respect their needs.

Evidence that transgender and LGBTQ people face barriers

Research shows that LGBTQ people, including transgender people, face more career barriers in science and technology fields than their non LGBTQ peers. A well-documented study found that LGBTQ professionals in STEM experienced higher rates of harassment, professional devaluation, and career limits. These negative experiences make it harder for LGBTQ people to advance and stay in STEM careers.

Due to fear of negative consequences, people who identify as LGBTQ are not open at work about their identities in separate surveys and reports. In some fields, as many as four in ten LGBTQ workers reported hiding their identity from colleagues. That lack of openness reduces honest discussion about how research design or healthcare policy affects transgender people.

What the biotech industry currently looks like

According to some industry reports, there is some progress in gender balance overall, and the data on transgender workers is still sparse. Biotech trade groups and extensive surveys track gender and race, and do not collect detailed data on gender identity beyond male or female. The gap makes it hard to measure the number of transgender employees or to track experiences over time. The BIO industry diversity report found gains in overall gender representation and noted persistent gaps in leadership roles. Improved data collection is needed to demonstrate how transgender people are faring in biotech.

Corporate Policies and Benefits Matter

Several large companies have adopted policies that protect gender identity and sexual orientation. The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) Corporate Equality Index tracks workplace protections and benefits for LGBTQ employees. Participation in the HRC index has increased, and more companies now report transgender-inclusive policies and health benefits. For example, the HRC tracks whether employers offer gender identity nondiscrimination protections and provide transgender-inclusive health insurance. These policies can reduce barriers to hiring and retention.

Why company culture must go beyond policy

Policies and benefits matter. However, policies alone are not enough. Transgender employees need an everyday workplace culture that respects their identities. This includes the use of chosen names and pronouns, private and safe restrooms and changing facilities, transparent processes for name changes in payroll and HR systems, and training for managers. Employee resource groups and leadership commitment help, but they must be integral to the organization rather than symbolic gestures.

Why better representation improves research quality

Biotech aims to develop medicines that work for many kinds of people. Transgender people have health needs that are sometimes unique or are affected by hormone therapy and by social determinants of health. If transgender people are not included among study teams and investigators, essential variables may be overlooked, and assumptions that exclude transgender participants may be made, or relevant data about gender identity may fail to be collected. This can lead to incomplete safety profiles or treatments that are less effective for specific groups.

For example, clinical trial forms and electronic health records that limit gender options to man or woman will miss information about patients who are transgender or nonbinary. That missing data prevents accurate analysis of outcomes by gender identity. Companies who have expanded how they collect gender identity information and train staff to ask respectful questions are better positioned to produce inclusive science. The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and other groups provide practical guidance on offering transgender-inclusive health benefits and workplace practices.

Patient trust and trial recruitment

Trust matters for clinical trials. Historically marginalized groups are less likely to enroll in research when they do not trust that the research team will respect them. Transgender people have been subject to discrimination in healthcare settings, and that history affects decisions about research participation. When biotech companies recruit transgender staff, they signal a commitment to inclusion and can demonstrate to potential participants that the research team understands their needs. This can improve recruitment, retention, and the overall quality of the data.

Policy shifts and uncertainty

Corporate support for transgender inclusion has been expanding, but political and legal changes can create uncertainty. Some companies have adjusted their diversity goals or benefit offerings in response to new regulations and executive actions. That shifting landscape can make long-term planning difficult for companies and can create anxiety among transgender employees. It is essential for leaders in biotech to explain their decisions clearly and to retain core protections that support scientific integrity and patient safety. Recent reports indicate that some pharmaceutical companies have paused or altered diversity targets in response to legal and policy changes. Readers should follow industry news closely to see how these trends evolve.

Immediate Concrete Steps for Biotech Companies

The following steps are practical actions biotech companies can take to improve transgender representation and inclusion. Each step is feasible and tied to measurable goals.

1. Measure gender identity with care.

2. Add options for gender identity on HR forms and in research data collection. Use separate fields for sex assigned at birth and current gender identity where clinically relevant. Ensure that privacy protections are strong and that employees and participants understand how their data will be used.

3. Offer transgender inclusive health benefits.

4. Cover medically necessary care related to gender affirming treatments. Ensure that benefits administrators and human resources teams understand how to process claims and support name changes. The Human Rights Campaign provides a benchmarking index and detailed guidance on best practices.

5. Train managers and staff

6. Provide regular, practical training on gender identity, pronouns, and respectful workplace behaviors. Training should be scenario-based and reflect fundamental workplace interactions. Training improves day-to-day inclusion far more than a single annual session.

7. Make recruitment inclusive

8. Work with universities and professional groups that support transgender students and professionals. Include transgender people in candidate slates and use inclusive language in job postings. Track hiring outcomes to inform adjustments to recruiting efforts.

9. Support employee resource groups and mentorships.

10. Employee groups for LGBTQ staff can provide community and advise leadership. Mentorship programs that match transgender employees with sponsors and leaders help career growth.

11. Include transgender perspectives in research design.

12. Invite transgender community advisors to review the study design and consent language. Adjust eligibility criteria and safety monitoring plans when hormone therapy or gender specific conditions matter for outcomes.

13. Report progress publicly

14. Publish annual metrics that show progress on hiring, promotion, and retention. Transparency increases accountability and builds trust with patients and the public.

Science, Ethics, and Responsibility

Biotech operates at the interface of science and patient care. The ethical duty not to harm extends to how companies design research, hire staff, and treat colleagues. Transgender representation is not a political slogan. It is a scientific and ethical necessity. When research teams are inclusive, the science benefits and patients receive treatments that better reflect real-world needs.

Improving transgender representation in biotechnology is a long-term endeavor that requires both policy changes and sustained cultural shifts. The industry must collect better data, adopt inclusive benefits and practices, and listen to transgender people when designing research. Doing so will improve science, protect patients, and make biotech a stronger place to work for everyone.

Stop merely reacting to policy shifts and waiting for industry data. The future of inclusive science and drug development starts with decisive action today. Contact Metis Consulting Services: hello@metisconsultingservices.com

Useful Links And Resources

Human Rights Campaign Corporate Equality Index. https://reports.hrc.org/corporate-equality-index.

Science Advances study on LGBTQ professionals in STEM. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abe0933.

BIO report Measuring Diversity in the Biotech Industry. https://www.bio.org/sites/default/files/2022-06/261734_BIO_22_DEI_Report_P4.pdf.

Recent survey of LGBTQ climate in biology (pre-print). https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.01.24.634486v1.full.

Nature commentary on diversity and representation in science. https://www.nature.com/articles/s44259-025-00101-7.

Pharma's Future: Addressing Political Challenges to DEI

This week in the Guardrail, Michael Bronfman analyzes the intensifying national debate surrounding diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and how the rejection of these ideas by certain political movements is beginning to reshape biomedical policy, clinical research, and the pharmaceutical sector.

Written by Michael Bronf, for Metis Consulting Services
December 8, 2025

The pharmaceutical sector does not exist in isolation. It depends on public trust, scientific talent, federal research funding, and a stable regulatory environment. It also depends on a workforce that understands the needs of patients from many backgrounds. As national debates over diversity, equity, and inclusion continue to intensify, these conflicts are beginning to shape biomedical policy, clinical research, workforce development, and the long-term direction of American innovation.

Much of the current cultural debate centers on disagreement over who benefits from DEI programs. These frameworks often support groups that have historically faced barriers in education, employment, and health care. This list is wide because real patient populations are wide. It includes women, pregnant women, non binary people, transgender people, the LGBTQ+ community, young people, older adults, Black people, Indigenous people, Latinos, Asian Americans, Pacific Islanders, Middle Eastern communities, North African communities, mixed race individuals, people with disabilities, neurodivergent individuals, people with chronic illnesses, people with mental health conditions, military veterans, active duty service members, military spouses, military families, first generation college students, low income individuals, people from rural communities, formerly incarcerated individuals, people experiencing homelessness, religious minorities, Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, atheists, secular individuals, refugees, immigrants, working parents, caregivers, union workers, gig workers, and freelancers.

Critics argue that supporting such a broad list transforms DEI into an ideological system. Supporters argue that these are simply the people that the health care system already serves. These disagreements form the foundation of a cultural conflict that increasingly influences life sciences policy.

The Rise of Organized Opposition to DEI

DEI programs expanded across universities, hospitals, national laboratories, and scientific training programs over the past two decades. Supporters inside the biomedical and pharmaceutical sectors argue that these programs improve representation in clinical trials, strengthen the science workforce, and help reduce disparities in health outcomes. The National Institutes of Health has long published guidance supporting diverse enrollment to produce more reliable trial results.

Opponents offer a different view. Many state lawmakers and national political figures argue that DEI encourages selection based on identity rather than scientific merit. They say that these programs add unnecessary bureaucracy, restrict academic freedom, and fail to improve overall performance. A growing number of states, including Florida, Texas, and several Midwestern states, have passed laws that restrict or remove DEI policies from public universities and state agencies.

These policies now influence medical schools, residency training, and state research funding. Over time, they will affect the talent pathways that feed into pharmaceutical innovation.

How Opposition to DEI Connects to the Term Woke

The term “woke” has become a broad label for progressive cultural ideas, such as awareness of racial disparities, gender inclusion, and the ongoing effects of historical discrimination. Supporters argue that these concepts help organizations understand how policies may affect different communities. Critics argue that the term describes a rigid belief system that demands compliance and discourages open debate.

Several political commentators and media influencers have built large audiences by claiming that woke culture shapes hiring, education, and scientific research in ways that limit open inquiry. They argue that institutions should avoid cultural messaging and instead emphasize neutrality and performance.

The pharmaceutical sector now operates at the center of this conflict. Large companies depend on diverse global talent and international regulatory systems. However, many lawmakers want to limit or remove DEI practices from government agencies, universities, and medical systems. This tension will influence the scientific workforce for years to come.

Why Some Conservative Figures Criticize Senators Who Support DEI or Moderate Positions

Although many conservative senators strongly oppose DEI, others take more balanced positions or support limited forms of diversity programming. This has created friction within political movements that want a total removal of DEI from public institutions.

During election cycles, these disputes become more visible. Commentators often accuse moderate senators of being too close to universities, technology companies, or multinational corporations. They argue that these institutions promote cultural values that weaken national identity. They also say that these lawmakers fail to confront DEI programs inside medical research, federal grants, or regulatory agencies.

These disagreements matter for the pharmaceutical sector because the Senate controls agency confirmations, federal budgets, and the long-term direction of the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration.

How Opposition to DEI May Affect Medical Research

Clinical trials offer the clearest example. Trial accuracy depends on participants who reflect real patient populations. Without broad enrollment, trial outcomes may not predict how a drug performs once it reaches the market. The Food and Drug Administration has reported that many trials still lack representation from Black, Latino, Indigenous, and rural populations.

Supporters of DEI programs argue that inclusive enrollment strategies protect public safety. Critics argue that these requirements slow development and add burdens to research sponsors. They also say that clinical trial design should focus on speed rather than representativeness.

This disagreement matters because the United States faces rising rates of heart disease, diabetes, cancer, autoimmune disorders, and neurodegenerative conditions. These conditions affect communities differently. If trial enrollment becomes less diverse, the accuracy of safety and efficacy data may weaken.

How DEI Shapes the Talent Pipeline

The life sciences sector faces a growing shortage of skilled workers in biomanufacturing, regulatory affairs, clinical operations, and data science. Many industry leaders argue that expanding opportunities for students from underrepresented backgrounds strengthens the long-term workforce.

Opponents of DEI argue that mentorship and training programs for specific groups create unfair advantages. They say that evaluation should occur without any consideration of identity. They also claim that DEI statements in hiring reduce open expression in academic and industrial settings.

If political pressure eliminates programs that support early interest in science and medicine, then the life sciences sector may face a long term talent shortage. Companies may struggle to hire clinical researchers, regulatory specialists, and biomanufacturing staff. This would slow the development of new therapies and increase costs.

How Cultural Conflict Shapes Public Trust

Public trust in health agencies has declined in recent years. Critics blame this decline on cultural conflict. They argue that agencies have adopted ideological messages that distract from their core mission. They claim that DEI training and cultural outreach weaken neutrality.

Supporters argue the opposite. They say that respectful communication builds trust, especially among communities that have experienced unequal treatment in the health system. A well-known example is the communication strategy used during the national COVID-19 vaccination campaign.

Pharmaceutical companies will need to understand how these debates influence risk perception, trial participation, and treatment acceptance.

The Objectives of the Anti-DEI Movement and Why They Matter to Pharma

Opponents of DEI describe three main goals.

1. Removal of identity-based programs from public institutions

2. Reduction of ideological influence in science and education

3. A shift toward what they call merit-based evaluation

If this movement succeeds, the pharmaceutical sector will see meaningful changes. Medical schools may cut DEI offices. Universities may remove diversity training from research programs. Federal agencies may reduce or eliminate expectations for inclusive clinical trial enrollment.

A deeper objective also exists. Many DEI critics want to move public institutions away from international collaboration and toward a nationalist approach to science in scientific research.

A nationalist model would limit the exchange of international talent, weaken cross-border research partnerships, and increase regulatory variability. All of these changes could raise development costs and slow progress toward new therapies.

What the Pharmaceutical Sector Should Watch in the Next Five Years

Several trends deserve close attention.

• More states may restrict DEI in universities, teaching hospitals, and public research centers.

• Congressional debates may influence whether the National Institutes of Health continues to fund diversity-based training grants.

• The Food and Drug Administration may face political pressure to revise its trial diversity expectations.

• Universities may adjust hiring practices due to legal challenges, reducing the academic pipeline that feeds industry research.

• Cultural conflict may influence how patients interpret scientific guidance, which will affect enrollment, adherence, and overall health outcomes.

The debate over DEI and woke culture is more than a political argument. It is a policy struggle that directly affects pharmaceutical innovation, clinical research, workforce development, and public trust. Some political movements see DEI as a threat to fairness and national identity. They want to remove it from government, education, and scientific institutions. Their efforts are already reshaping state laws, federal debates, and the future of medical research.

The pharmaceutical sector depends on broad research diversity, a strong and reliable talent pipeline, and stable levels of public trust. As political movements push for major changes in DEI policy, industry leaders will need to understand these forces and adapt strategies to protect innovation and patient safety.

These are complex and evolving policy waters. To get the best data and maintain public trust, it's important to develop an adaptable strategy proactively—contact Metis Consulting Services today to ensure your company is prepared for the future, and keep the patient as the priority. Email: hello@metisconsultingservices.com or stop by our website metisconsultingservices.com